Originally Posted by Mike J. G.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, seeing as I've already mentioned how a lot of Ripper literature seems to be promoted in such a way.
The subject here is the diary, and there's a new book on it, so my comment was pretty much entirely valid.
My cares are not vested in who believes what about which, my stance is that it's a hoax, and a recent one, and if anyone believes otherwise, then show me the money. I'm not seeing much in the way of "money" from anyone.
So Robert Smith has mentioned/reviewed the scientific provenance in his book and stated that there is zero evidence of forgery and that there is nothing to preclude the diary from originating in 1888/9 that is invalid because 'science can be fooled.' Why do we bother using science at all? I wonder if you would talk of science being fooled if a scientist had said that he could prove the diary a forgery?